In most markets, eventually you have to conform to reality. As an example, bid up the price of real estate about certain market fundamentals and you have a bubble that will eventually burst. In this case, reality may conform to the market, with bizarre consequences. It's actually a very interesting economic problem.
You're setting up a strawman. Atheists aren't claiming to be god. Many don't even believe that there's no god. You should really consider looking into the idea and make sure you understand it before dismissing it.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Let's say you're a lender for a big bank, and your job/bonus depends on your performance in relation to other lenders. The bank isn't taking on extra risk by making these loans (due to securitization), so there is no penalty for making a risky loan, but if you don't make the loan, then you maybe lose your job. If you don't make the loan, you will be replaced by someone who will. At that point, the rational thing to do is make the loan, even if you know there's a good chance at a default.
That's on an individual scale. At the organization level, the same thing is happening. If every other bank is making these loans and their earning are up because of it, your stockholders are going to want in on the action. Upper management's jobs are now on the line, so they send the orders down to the rank and file to make the loans. Again, it's the rational thing to do given the circumstances.
In a perfect world going against something like this wouldn't be career suicide, but the reality is that we don't allow people to act on their own conscience without severe consequences. The world is full of perverse incentives like this. The only way to stop it is through transparency and sensible regulations.
I remember taking some medication for a sudden, severe condition and realizing after about a week that I was craving it. Little thoughts like, 'if I just take one of those pills I will be able to sleep' or 'I really should have some of those pills in case this suddenly gets worse while I'm out.' I found out after that the drug I had been prescribed was actually highly addictive. Now, at that point I was not quite so hooked that I couldn't wean myself off, but had my condition been worse, or if I hadn't caught the warning signs despite my state of mind, I might easily have had my prescription end and found myself utterly dependent on the medication. As it was, I found myself carrying a couple pills around like a security blanket for a good six months. I have since refused medication for this particular condition out of fear that I will become addicted despite my best efforts.
It's easy to judge others when you haven't been there and seen how addictive substances weasel their way into your thoughts. It's not about being strong- or weak-minded, its about your brain chemistry being profoundly altered by the substances that you take, and realizing that you can no longer function without those substances. This is what happens when you mess around with brain chemistry in such profound ways.
I am of the opinion that all addictive medications like this should be prescribed with the patient in full understanding of its addictiveness and such that the patient is weaned off slowly. Anything else is setting the patient up for failure.
Science is about disprovability. There is no possible experiment that can disprove creationism, while there are plenty that could disprove evolution. For instance, if a fossil was found in the wrong era, or if a cow was found that was genetically identical to a pig, then current theories would have to be set aside. This is the difference between creationism and evolution.
You're making an assumption about what atheists believe. While it's true that some atheists actively disbelieve or reject God, others take a bit more of a nuanced approached. For instance, I actively disbelieve in an anthropomorphic god because, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is an absurd concept brought about by a severe lack of imagination in those who created it. Zeus just doesn't seem plausible to me, and further from that the laws of physics contradict him.
As for the existence of god as a general creator of the universe in general, I have not rejected the idea. However, I also have not seen any evidence that a creator god exists, and so I live my life as if it doesn't. I take this approach in all things, and as such live my life as if aliens, Atlantis, and ghosts don't exist, but at the same time leave my mind open to the possibility should evidence present itself. It allows me to focus on things that actually impact my life, rather than the invisible and the implausible.
Apart from the obvious flaws inherent in using relative rather than absolute values to measure performance, this creates a system that is built on interpersonal conflict. That is, every member of the team is in competition with everyone else for the top spots, and they know that they can 'beat' their team members either by 'performing' better (ethically or otherwise), or sabotaging others. In the most benign environment possible, being consistently in the top spots means things like more promotions and better raises, and a some people will compete to get there while others will just coast.
If you introduce higher stakes like layoffs (as is usually the case if this type of system is implemented), then something interesting happens. The least ethical players find ways to game the system (in a call center, they dump calls. If they're a banker, they push through that loan they really shouldn't make) and their numbers go up. The most ethical players don't do this, and their numbers stay the same. Assuming equal talent, the unethical player wins in this game, and the ethical player is laid off. Everyone in between sees that the unethical players are being rewarded, and the ethical behaviour punished, and they start to emulate the unethical players in order to keep their jobs. After a few rounds of this, you end up with an extremely unhealthy work environment with an entrenched culture of dishonesty and distrust.
There are more factors involved, of course. The initial state of the employees (their personal competitiveness, ego, and the effort/time/money they put into the job), the measurably of performance, and the internal culture of the company all make a big difference. But all things being equal, I would think twice before adopting the system that drove Enron off the deep end.
If cocaine was legalized tomorrow would you run out and buy it? Consider why you wouldn't, and consider the possibility that you're not the only one who thinks that way.
It is wrong to assume that legalization would result in greater usage. Consider marijuana usage in the Netherlands, where usage patterns did not change after decriminalization. People don't decide to use drugs because they're legal, they use them because they want to use drugs. Also consider how likely you would be to try heroin if it were legalized tomorrow. For most, of us, it wouldn't even be a consideration because we recognize the potential harm without paternalistic hand-holding, and for those who want to try it, laws are not exactly an effective barrier.
Criminalization also shifts the demographics of drug usage. Prior to opium being criminalized its most common users were housewives, who used it fairly moderately for 'women's problems.' Usage shifted to a younger, male, thrill-seeking crowd shortly after, which resulted in the drug becoming more potent and dangerous (demand from the new demographic). A shift away from prohibition could lead to less usage by people in the thrill-seeking demographics, leading to more moderate usage practices.
Prohibition also leads to unsafe usage practices. During alcohol prohibition, the barriers to getting alcohol were such that, once it was available, people were binge drinking. All sorts of chemicals ended up in alcohol (like iodine and embalming fluid), making it more dangerous. You get the same thing with people using unsafe drugs now (like meth and 'bath salts'), rather than safer alternatives.
Prohibition also acts against attempts to limit damage to public health. When something is illegal, people are far less likely to seek help, which means people lose their support networks and people who might otherwise seek drug treatment don't. In places where drug use is decriminalized, there are fewer overdoses, fewer diseases, and higher quality of life. It also results in reduced, rather than increased, health care costs because prevention is almost universally less expensive than treatment.
Finally, a disproportionate number of non-functional drug addicts are mentally ill and using drugs to self-medicate. Once you destigmatize their drug addition you can start to treat the underlying mental health problems, potentially turning that person into a productive member of society or at least managing antisocial behaviour.
This is all before you get into the issues surrounding dealing and law enforcement, which history tells us would be all but disappear in the long term through legalization. This is why people aren't being gunned down by gangsters selling alcohol anymore. While it's undeniable that some black market would still exist (such as the one surrounding untaxed cigarettes), the effect would be far less devastating than the current scenario.
Religious beliefs have had a very long time to grow, and the ones that were not able to circumvent rational thought (through such things as the consistency principle, indoctrination, and fear of punishment) died out over time. Call it ' religious Darwinism.'
The vast majority of people involved in the drug trade are not sociopaths. At the same time, legalization will not solve the problems (such as a poor economy and strong criminal culture) that created the situation to start with. In order to reduce the power of the cartels, you need to improve education, infrastructure, and the economy in such a way that young people have opportunities to improve themselves and provide for their families without joining a gang.
I live in BC, and as far as I'm aware marijuana has not been decriminalized here. That being said it's extremely easy to get, and you're very unlikely to be arrested or charged for possession (or even distribution or production) if that's what you mean.
My area of study is not academic dishonesty, but occupational fraud and more specifically the impact of corporate culture on employee behaviour. If you look at organizations that have problems with rampant fraud, what you see is a pattern of unethical behaviour in the top ranks that trickles down in such a way that ethical players can't compete in that environment and are driven out.
This article leads me to suspect a top-down unethical culture that is separate from, but not necessarily unimpacted by, the home culture of its participants. What I mean by this is that the school itself, including administrators, ethical committees, professors, and teaching assistants are either turning a blind eye to cheating, creating opportunities for cheating, or actively participating in it, or they have created an environment where cheating is perceived as necessary to get ahead. In addition, the metrics (grading schemes, rules for dealing with academic dishonesty) the school uses may be flawed in such a way that they inadvertently punish honest students or reward cheaters.
However, you also have to look at the students who are being accepted. Have they overwhelmingly paid a great deal to go there or made significant sacrifices? Do only the most competitive students get in? Do they have a lot to lose if they do not perform to the same standard as their peers? This is where personal and family culture can come into play, and more often than not does, but I would be careful not to assume that the differences between American and Asian cultures are having the impact suggested above.
'Cheating' behaviours do seem to be more socially accepted in Asian cultures, and the school environment is more competitive, but I have never seen any relevant comparison of unethical behaviour while studying in a foreign environment, as compared to foreign students. For all we know, the differences are the result of the administration's behaviour in Asian schools, or hyper-competitiveness resultant from poverty or overpopulation, or any number of localized variables. It may well be that Asian students actually behave more ethically than their American counterparts, given the right environmental cues.
In Canada, you have to have a legitimate financial reason to take out life insurance on anyone, yourself included. For instance, if you make $20k per year and have no assets to speak of, then you would not be able to take out millions of dollars of life insurance on yourself. You also couldn't take out life insurance on that neighbor you don't like, or on me. The reason for this is that allowing it causes serious criminal activity. I suspect that the US system has similar restrictions, since I've never heard of anyone trying to collect insurance on some random guy they killed.
Could there be some attrition bias here? Maybe the average number of mutations is actually higher, but those with more mutations are more likely to miscarry or die in childhood?
People in Vancouver are standing up and saying this type of behaviour is unacceptable. Last night, they did this by taking pictures, creating forums to share evidence, and guarding businesses. Today they gathered downtown to help with the cleanup. For those of you searching for an Orwellian scenario in all of this, there's nothing to find.
Those numbers are reported stats, not actual ones. Considering how much lower the murder rate is in Canada compared to the US (the one thing listed that you don't report yourself), I would say its likely that Americans just choose not to report violent crimes.
Because money has to follow the laws of supply and demand just like candy bars do. Ideally, the money supply should mirror the economy, expanding as production increases in order to keep price levels steady. If it doesn't, then people lose faith in the currency and it becomes worthless.
There is actually a very simple and universally understood rule that everyone there understands: the bigger vehicle has the right of way. So, buses do whatever the hell they want, cars speed up as they come up to groups of bikes, and pedestrians cross the road very carefully.
When I was in China last year, I noticed the bus drivers have a fun habit of driving down the middle of a two lane highway, ignoring other traffic. A bus I was on took out a small car, grinding it between the bus and a median. The driver didn't stop, claiming he didn't feel anything.
I will never get into a vehicle without a seatbelt on again.
Slashdot Mirror
This wasn't a random sample.
If any other belief lacked so much as a shred of scientific evidence, would you consider not believing that thing to require a leap of faith?
I would have to disagree with this. Markets react to irrational bubbles by ruthlessly bursting them, bringing prices back to reality.
In most markets, eventually you have to conform to reality. As an example, bid up the price of real estate about certain market fundamentals and you have a bubble that will eventually burst. In this case, reality may conform to the market, with bizarre consequences. It's actually a very interesting economic problem.
You're setting up a strawman. Atheists aren't claiming to be god. Many don't even believe that there's no god. You should really consider looking into the idea and make sure you understand it before dismissing it.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Let's say you're a lender for a big bank, and your job/bonus depends on your performance in relation to other lenders. The bank isn't taking on extra risk by making these loans (due to securitization), so there is no penalty for making a risky loan, but if you don't make the loan, then you maybe lose your job. If you don't make the loan, you will be replaced by someone who will. At that point, the rational thing to do is make the loan, even if you know there's a good chance at a default.
That's on an individual scale. At the organization level, the same thing is happening. If every other bank is making these loans and their earning are up because of it, your stockholders are going to want in on the action. Upper management's jobs are now on the line, so they send the orders down to the rank and file to make the loans. Again, it's the rational thing to do given the circumstances.
In a perfect world going against something like this wouldn't be career suicide, but the reality is that we don't allow people to act on their own conscience without severe consequences. The world is full of perverse incentives like this. The only way to stop it is through transparency and sensible regulations.
I remember taking some medication for a sudden, severe condition and realizing after about a week that I was craving it. Little thoughts like, 'if I just take one of those pills I will be able to sleep' or 'I really should have some of those pills in case this suddenly gets worse while I'm out.' I found out after that the drug I had been prescribed was actually highly addictive. Now, at that point I was not quite so hooked that I couldn't wean myself off, but had my condition been worse, or if I hadn't caught the warning signs despite my state of mind, I might easily have had my prescription end and found myself utterly dependent on the medication. As it was, I found myself carrying a couple pills around like a security blanket for a good six months. I have since refused medication for this particular condition out of fear that I will become addicted despite my best efforts.
It's easy to judge others when you haven't been there and seen how addictive substances weasel their way into your thoughts. It's not about being strong- or weak-minded, its about your brain chemistry being profoundly altered by the substances that you take, and realizing that you can no longer function without those substances. This is what happens when you mess around with brain chemistry in such profound ways.
I am of the opinion that all addictive medications like this should be prescribed with the patient in full understanding of its addictiveness and such that the patient is weaned off slowly. Anything else is setting the patient up for failure.
Science is about disprovability. There is no possible experiment that can disprove creationism, while there are plenty that could disprove evolution. For instance, if a fossil was found in the wrong era, or if a cow was found that was genetically identical to a pig, then current theories would have to be set aside. This is the difference between creationism and evolution.
You're making an assumption about what atheists believe. While it's true that some atheists actively disbelieve or reject God, others take a bit more of a nuanced approached. For instance, I actively disbelieve in an anthropomorphic god because, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is an absurd concept brought about by a severe lack of imagination in those who created it. Zeus just doesn't seem plausible to me, and further from that the laws of physics contradict him.
As for the existence of god as a general creator of the universe in general, I have not rejected the idea. However, I also have not seen any evidence that a creator god exists, and so I live my life as if it doesn't. I take this approach in all things, and as such live my life as if aliens, Atlantis, and ghosts don't exist, but at the same time leave my mind open to the possibility should evidence present itself. It allows me to focus on things that actually impact my life, rather than the invisible and the implausible.
Apart from the obvious flaws inherent in using relative rather than absolute values to measure performance, this creates a system that is built on interpersonal conflict. That is, every member of the team is in competition with everyone else for the top spots, and they know that they can 'beat' their team members either by 'performing' better (ethically or otherwise), or sabotaging others. In the most benign environment possible, being consistently in the top spots means things like more promotions and better raises, and a some people will compete to get there while others will just coast.
If you introduce higher stakes like layoffs (as is usually the case if this type of system is implemented), then something interesting happens. The least ethical players find ways to game the system (in a call center, they dump calls. If they're a banker, they push through that loan they really shouldn't make) and their numbers go up. The most ethical players don't do this, and their numbers stay the same. Assuming equal talent, the unethical player wins in this game, and the ethical player is laid off. Everyone in between sees that the unethical players are being rewarded, and the ethical behaviour punished, and they start to emulate the unethical players in order to keep their jobs. After a few rounds of this, you end up with an extremely unhealthy work environment with an entrenched culture of dishonesty and distrust.
There are more factors involved, of course. The initial state of the employees (their personal competitiveness, ego, and the effort/time/money they put into the job), the measurably of performance, and the internal culture of the company all make a big difference. But all things being equal, I would think twice before adopting the system that drove Enron off the deep end.
This kind of system is what leads to unethical behaviour in organizations. I feel sorry for your company.
If cocaine was legalized tomorrow would you run out and buy it? Consider why you wouldn't, and consider the possibility that you're not the only one who thinks that way.
It is wrong to assume that legalization would result in greater usage. Consider marijuana usage in the Netherlands, where usage patterns did not change after decriminalization. People don't decide to use drugs because they're legal, they use them because they want to use drugs. Also consider how likely you would be to try heroin if it were legalized tomorrow. For most, of us, it wouldn't even be a consideration because we recognize the potential harm without paternalistic hand-holding, and for those who want to try it, laws are not exactly an effective barrier.
Criminalization also shifts the demographics of drug usage. Prior to opium being criminalized its most common users were housewives, who used it fairly moderately for 'women's problems.' Usage shifted to a younger, male, thrill-seeking crowd shortly after, which resulted in the drug becoming more potent and dangerous (demand from the new demographic). A shift away from prohibition could lead to less usage by people in the thrill-seeking demographics, leading to more moderate usage practices.
Prohibition also leads to unsafe usage practices. During alcohol prohibition, the barriers to getting alcohol were such that, once it was available, people were binge drinking. All sorts of chemicals ended up in alcohol (like iodine and embalming fluid), making it more dangerous. You get the same thing with people using unsafe drugs now (like meth and 'bath salts'), rather than safer alternatives.
Prohibition also acts against attempts to limit damage to public health. When something is illegal, people are far less likely to seek help, which means people lose their support networks and people who might otherwise seek drug treatment don't. In places where drug use is decriminalized, there are fewer overdoses, fewer diseases, and higher quality of life. It also results in reduced, rather than increased, health care costs because prevention is almost universally less expensive than treatment.
Finally, a disproportionate number of non-functional drug addicts are mentally ill and using drugs to self-medicate. Once you destigmatize their drug addition you can start to treat the underlying mental health problems, potentially turning that person into a productive member of society or at least managing antisocial behaviour.
This is all before you get into the issues surrounding dealing and law enforcement, which history tells us would be all but disappear in the long term through legalization. This is why people aren't being gunned down by gangsters selling alcohol anymore. While it's undeniable that some black market would still exist (such as the one surrounding untaxed cigarettes), the effect would be far less devastating than the current scenario.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/korf-e.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition
Religious beliefs have had a very long time to grow, and the ones that were not able to circumvent rational thought (through such things as the consistency principle, indoctrination, and fear of punishment) died out over time. Call it ' religious Darwinism.'
The vast majority of people involved in the drug trade are not sociopaths. At the same time, legalization will not solve the problems (such as a poor economy and strong criminal culture) that created the situation to start with. In order to reduce the power of the cartels, you need to improve education, infrastructure, and the economy in such a way that young people have opportunities to improve themselves and provide for their families without joining a gang.
I live in BC, and as far as I'm aware marijuana has not been decriminalized here. That being said it's extremely easy to get, and you're very unlikely to be arrested or charged for possession (or even distribution or production) if that's what you mean.
My area of study is not academic dishonesty, but occupational fraud and more specifically the impact of corporate culture on employee behaviour. If you look at organizations that have problems with rampant fraud, what you see is a pattern of unethical behaviour in the top ranks that trickles down in such a way that ethical players can't compete in that environment and are driven out. This article leads me to suspect a top-down unethical culture that is separate from, but not necessarily unimpacted by, the home culture of its participants. What I mean by this is that the school itself, including administrators, ethical committees, professors, and teaching assistants are either turning a blind eye to cheating, creating opportunities for cheating, or actively participating in it, or they have created an environment where cheating is perceived as necessary to get ahead. In addition, the metrics (grading schemes, rules for dealing with academic dishonesty) the school uses may be flawed in such a way that they inadvertently punish honest students or reward cheaters. However, you also have to look at the students who are being accepted. Have they overwhelmingly paid a great deal to go there or made significant sacrifices? Do only the most competitive students get in? Do they have a lot to lose if they do not perform to the same standard as their peers? This is where personal and family culture can come into play, and more often than not does, but I would be careful not to assume that the differences between American and Asian cultures are having the impact suggested above. 'Cheating' behaviours do seem to be more socially accepted in Asian cultures, and the school environment is more competitive, but I have never seen any relevant comparison of unethical behaviour while studying in a foreign environment, as compared to foreign students. For all we know, the differences are the result of the administration's behaviour in Asian schools, or hyper-competitiveness resultant from poverty or overpopulation, or any number of localized variables. It may well be that Asian students actually behave more ethically than their American counterparts, given the right environmental cues.
In Canada, you have to have a legitimate financial reason to take out life insurance on anyone, yourself included. For instance, if you make $20k per year and have no assets to speak of, then you would not be able to take out millions of dollars of life insurance on yourself. You also couldn't take out life insurance on that neighbor you don't like, or on me. The reason for this is that allowing it causes serious criminal activity. I suspect that the US system has similar restrictions, since I've never heard of anyone trying to collect insurance on some random guy they killed.
Right, but it could explain why the numbers they found were lower than expected.
Could there be some attrition bias here? Maybe the average number of mutations is actually higher, but those with more mutations are more likely to miscarry or die in childhood?
People in Vancouver are standing up and saying this type of behaviour is unacceptable. Last night, they did this by taking pictures, creating forums to share evidence, and guarding businesses. Today they gathered downtown to help with the cleanup. For those of you searching for an Orwellian scenario in all of this, there's nothing to find.
I've heard quite a few religious people claim that without God, humanity would lead a life of debauchery, violence and sin. .
Kinda like we do now?
Those numbers are reported stats, not actual ones. Considering how much lower the murder rate is in Canada compared to the US (the one thing listed that you don't report yourself), I would say its likely that Americans just choose not to report violent crimes.
Because money has to follow the laws of supply and demand just like candy bars do. Ideally, the money supply should mirror the economy, expanding as production increases in order to keep price levels steady. If it doesn't, then people lose faith in the currency and it becomes worthless.
There is actually a very simple and universally understood rule that everyone there understands: the bigger vehicle has the right of way. So, buses do whatever the hell they want, cars speed up as they come up to groups of bikes, and pedestrians cross the road very carefully. When I was in China last year, I noticed the bus drivers have a fun habit of driving down the middle of a two lane highway, ignoring other traffic. A bus I was on took out a small car, grinding it between the bus and a median. The driver didn't stop, claiming he didn't feel anything. I will never get into a vehicle without a seatbelt on again.